So let's tote up the results in the Middle East so far on the Obama/Hillary/Kerry watch:

Iraq War: turned from victory into defeat.Afghanistan: turned from victory into defeat.Egypt: relatively stable U.S. friendly dictatorship replaced with chaos.Libya: relatively cowed nutty dictatorship replaced with chaos (and the death of a U.S. ambassador)Syria: nasty dictator previously supported only by Iran now supported by Iran and Russia.Iran: closer to nuclear weapons.

"Perhaps the real centerpiece of the Obama/Clinton/Kerry mideast strategy is just an aim to get as many Arabs killing each other as possible."

I doubt they have a strategic bone between them. They are only the recipients of fortuitous events which has implemented the "Divide and Conquer" strategy on the West's behalf. Now for as long as the Islamo-Fascists are focused on killing each other, they will have much less resources to murder innocent Americans and other westerners.

Just for funzies: does Obama's foreign policy and his international relations make more sense if we assume he wants security and prosperity in the Middle East? Or do they make more sense if we assume that at heart Obama truly is aligned with radical Islam, wants to see all prior US efforts in the Mideast erased and reversed, and wishes radical Islam to flourish?

His actions certainly aren't those of a man who thinks Muslim terrorism is a bad thing....

Take note:Once Iran starts passing out nukes like so many Pez, the West will be checkmated because they wouldn't take the losses that Muslims will.Act now or have your children learn the direction of Mecca.

the world is different from 2003...we don't need their oil and the chance of a terrorist attack, domestically, is nil.

obama is not going to give the 'thank god' speech where he praises fracking and lauds bush for splintering the dictatorial regimes, providing an outlet for terrorists to vent their 'frustrations', within their own region, but...

Why is this an issue? Didn't the President say AQ is on the run? And didn't the election mean that the American peoipe concurred with this assessment? I am beginning to get the impression that the press is not playing it straight with us.

The dems in the main have been much more concerned about domestic politics than about international relations since at least LBJ. They probably are trying to get their clients to associate the removal of actual and aspiring totalitarian regimes with outright anarchy. That may be their most plausible tactic for the next couple of elections here.

Just for the record, a Sunni / al Qaeda takeover in Mosul (and to some extent Tikrit) is a major defeat for a US ally, the Kurds.

In Obama's zeal to ruin Iraq utterly (getting back at his nemesis George W Bush), he's causing tremendous suffering to Shiite and Sunni arabs, and I feel for them. But the Kurds have been in our corner for decades, despite the rough treatment we've given them, and so I feel a special sympathy for their plight.

The Kurds have always focused on Kirkut, which S. Hussein forced them from with his policy of Arabization. The Peshmerga is firmly in charge in Kirkut now that the Iraqi army has fled from the threat of ISIL.

1 year ago

Report Abuse

1 year agoEdit Report AbuseLink To Comment

This comment has been reported.
Click here
to view it anyway.

1
2
3
4
5Next View All

... (show more)

Update CommentCancel

One Trackback to “BEAUTIFULLY FALLING APART: U.S. Said to Rebuff Iraqi Request to Strike Militants.
Related: Iraq…”

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.